Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2018/03 ... eroid.htmlYes indeed - our solar system IS younger than the wider universe, Bob. We pretty much understand why and how. Clue: NOTHING to do with politics. And what you call a 'lack' of 'critical thinking skills' (which is something seen only very rarely from you eg you never ever directly address my arguments) is clearly - from what you write now - a lack of religious zealotry and lack of faith in supernaturalism.https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Electric_UniverseI'll listen to those videos when I have time, a bit later.

PS at 4.35 am BST:This does not assist young earth creationism imho. I was slightly distracted by log-in problems and then while listening by the need to alter my preferences to show BST instead of GMT on-screen and also make a clarifying comment on another forum. He keeps mentioning an 'electric comet' hypothesis but seems to accept that Oumuamua is an asteroid not a comet (and that it originates from another - distant - solar system). I assume the other YEC latched onto the idea that is mentioned that maybe the asteroid did not take billions of years to FORM (as it appears to have a THIN veneer of organic compounds). The point is how long it took to have a somewhat close encounter with our Sun. A very long time given the distance to even the nearest other solar system to ours. Just past 5 minutes into the second audio the speaker appears to cast doubt on the existence of the Oort Cloud when referring to a research paper* on Oumuamua. I don't fully follow his argument there - and Bob has not explained it. This research paper* I assume (though there was a later paper too I believe):https://www.eso.org/public/archives/rel ... o1737a.pdfSee the start of the 'Discussion' section; this paper does not question the existence of the Oort Cloud but it does suggest that scientists would have thought an interstellar comet arriving 'nearby' was more likely than an interstellar asteroid due to comets being thought more common (in our solar system anyway). The paper states: "Given that LPCs [Long Period Comets] retain their volatiles over Gyr time scales and the fact that A/2017 U1 has been at the temperatures of interstellar space for a long time, any ice should have survived for billions of years". But it adds that it is "it is difficult to reconcile A/2017 U1’s discovery with our current understanding of LPC formation and composition".The speaker makes another argument that I could not spot in the research paper. That 'our' Long Period Comets have the same sort of 'insulating layer' as Oumuamua apparently has and that this means the comets should not displaying cometary activity but should be 'inert' objects (now at least). But, as I say, this appears to be his 'spin' rather than taken from the research paper. Though he suggests the research paper might need to be taken with a 'pinch of salt'. But he does NOT suggest that the asteroid is 'not' interstellar.He also attempts to make an extremely tenuous link between Oumuamua's 2017 perihelion as it approached our Sun, solar activity it 'might' have triggered, and that major hurricanes and earthquakes on Earth around the same time 'might' have been triggered by that claimed (higher) solar activity.

PPS at 4.45 am. I did another search and found that the Abstract of this other research paper states:https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.03558"We find that about 1.3\,Myr ago 1I/2017U1 has passed within a distance of 0.16\,pc from the nearby star TYC4742-1027-1. It seems unlikely that 1I/2017U1 originated from an Oort-cloud around this star, but it simply trespassed on its way through."

http://radaractive.blogspot.co.uk/2018/ ... iling.html"If you work backward, the magnetic field would be so strong, it would wreck our happy home, so it cannot be billions of years old."It's funny how YECs like Coppedge only contemplate embracing uniformitarianism when it is of a sort that is known to be fictional. https://crev.info/2018/03/earth-magneti ... -decaying/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversalAny 'rapid' reversals of Earth’s magnetic field (whether localised and short-term as at Steens Mountain or planet-wide and semi 'permanent' as with the Brunhes–Matuyama reversal) tell us NOTHING about how old the planet is. And contrary to that YEC author Dr Henry Richter unbiased scientists believe Earth's magnetic field is generated by electric currents due to the motion of convection currents of molten iron in Earth's outer core driven by heat escaping from the core (a natural process known as a geodynamo). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamo_theorySo, if this is correct, Richter's comments in a 2017 book written with Coppedge that the explanation of Earth's (currently weakening) magnetic field is "that there are residual electric currents in the interior of the earth which are slowly decaying" (never to be strengthened again?) is mistaken. So his agenda-driven comment that "If the earth were more than 12,000 to 15,000 years old, life could not exist" because "If we extrapolate backward in time the observed decay rate, huge magnetic fields would have existed at that time, and the earth would be physically unstable" are completely irrelevant. "Creationists have pointed to the decay of the earth’s magnetic field for decades as prima facie evidence that the earth is young." And they are still completely wrong.For while I read on another YEC anti-science website that scientists "propose a complex, theoretical process known as the dynamo model, but such a model contradicts some basic laws of physics" the bigot who wrote that comment forgot to inform his readers what laws he may have had in mind (I suspect he may have an alleged lack of input energy in mind):https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-f ... tic-field/

However, I admit that a separate article on the CMI website flags a quote by Caltech scientist David Stevenson (which can be read at this link - which Jonathan Sarfati failed to supply a clickable link to):http://discovermagazine.com/2014/julyau ... -the-earth"... We do not understand how the Earth’s magnetic field has lasted for billions of years...".This article goes on to state that: "Researchers have known for many decades that the slow, convective sloshing of liquid iron in the outer core, aided by Earth’s rotation, generates the planet’s magnetic field. As the molten iron flows, it creates electric currents, which generate local magnetic fields. Those fields in turn give rise to more electric currents, an effect that results in a self-sustaining cycle called a geodynamo." But the article identifies a new puzzle: "Two years ago, a team of scientists from two British universities discovered that liquid iron, at the temperatures and pressures found in the outer core, conducts far more heat into the mantle than anyone had thought possible" and goes on to state: "If liquid iron conducts heat into the mantle at such a high rate, there wouldn’t be enough heat left in the outer core to churn its ocean of liquid iron. In other words, there would be no heat-driven convection in the outer core". And then quotes another scientist as saying: "... We would not have a geodynamo without convection". This puzzle might well also apply if Earth was just 6,000 years old, unless perhaps you assume (for whatever reason) that conduction was much weaker in the past.The article goes on to state: "Stevenson and other researchers have previously proposed a second mechanism besides heat flow that could produce the required convection in the outer core. The inner core, although composed almost entirely of pure iron, is thought to contain traces of lighter elements, primarily oxygen and silicon. As the iron in the inner core cools and solidifies, the researchers hypothesize, some of those light elements would be squeezed out, like the salt extruded from ice crystals when seawater freezes. Those light elements would then rise into the liquid outer core, creating convection currents. This so-called compositional convection would be another way to power the geodynamo". However that leads to another puzzle: "How did the geodynamo manage to function for at least a couple of billion years before the inner core existed?" One possible answer suggested is 'extra' heat in the core in the past. "... the [massive collision] theory of the moon’s fiery birth might also solve the problem of how Earth kept its geodynamo running before the inner core formed: Much of the impact energy of primordial collisions, like the one that may have caused the moon to form, would have been converted into heat, liquefying Earth’s interior".

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/"Radaractive: "Planetary Defense is Failing"Creationists have pointed out that Earth's magnetic field shows that our planet is young. Secular scientists try in vain to come up with plausible explanations."

FALSE.

As my previous post just demonstrated. (Please tell us exactly how the explanation mentioned at the end of that Discover article is 'not' scientifically plausible; it could be wrong but it does not look scientifically implausible.)

Maybe Bob should ask Ken Ham how that 'planetary defence is failing' scenario (it is a completely natural not man-caused phenomenon) squares up with Ken Ham's remarks that "We also need to remember that our atmosphere was carefully put in place by our Creator. God knew exactly what kind of atmosphere we needed and He gave us that atmosphere. He even made Earth the perfect size to be able to hold this atmosphere! We can be confident that we have the perfect atmosphere for our planet":https://answersingenesis.org/blogs/ken- ... alarmists/

PSAnd he has also tried to tell the bigot fans who follow his Facebook page that my allegedly 'gelastic' recent comments here about interstellar asteroid Oumuamua could also have been labelled 'risible'. "A more severe word, "risible" also applies. In this context, provoking extreme laughter."

But the people believing Oumuamua could somehow arrive here in just 6,000 years, and who are too cowardly to address my very detailed comments here last night, are Bob and his cronies. If anybody's position is risible it is theirs.

The bigot named Pentecost replied to Sorensen: "well the guys' claim [my reported claim that "this one chunk of rock negates all of biblical creation science"; it is the death knell for a 6,000 year old universe thus the death knell of young earth creationism in general] certainly deserves that response". Since he either has not seen my responses here, or is deliberately ignoring them, or his brain is too small for him to be able to understand why Oumuamua destroys young earth/universe creationism, whichever option applies he is still LYING.

http://www.piltdownsuperman.com/2018/03 ... uence.html"Anti-creationists detest evidence for the Flood because it refutes their deep time mythology."A typically nonsensical statement. The primary evidence for deep time comes from radiometric dating of IGNEOUS rocks. Whereas YEC anti-science apologists claim that SEDIMENTARY rocks (those containing the fossil record) are the evidence of a 'recent global Genesis Flood'.

Talking of the Grand Canyon, other Christians (geologists too) profoundly disagree with the likes of 'Cowboy Bob' and the ICR:https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... A_Critique"AbstractFour claims of Flood Geology—as they are related to the Grand Canyon and specifically to the book Grand Canyon: A Different View—are evaluated by directly addressing Young Earth Creationist arguments, by showing rock features that belie these claims, and by presenting the most up-to-date scientific theories on the origin of the Grand Canyon. We conclude that Young Earth Creationism promotes an erroneous and misleading interpretation of the geology of the Grand Canyon. We also conclude that the claim that all (or almost all) of the sedimentary rock in the Grand Canyon and on planet Earth was formed during Noah's Flood is not supported by the Bible."https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2016/PSCF6-16Hill.pdf

(Hands up I haven't read these two very lengthy articles. But it is interesting that Christians who are trained scientists are prepared to say after examining the evidence 'Noah's Flood didn't do this and the Bible doesn't say it did'. They must be pretty certain of their conclusions. And perhaps YEC 'flood geologists' are simply desperately trying to falsify deep time, and distract Christians from the order in the pattern of the fossil record as you move upwards through sedimentary layers, by telling their followers that it can all be 'explained' by a year-long 'global' flood.)

He's hawking this one:https://crev.info/2018/03/fossil-forest ... ntarctica/ (bigot David Coppedge presumably, being worse than wrong)Which contains minute specks of Fool's Gold, such as:"The team is wedded to the view that these fossil forests date to the time of one of evolutionary science’s mythoids, the Permian Extinction";"In science, it’s not proper to invoke ad hoc scenarios to keep your world view from being falsified. Evolution is supposed to be about progress, not extinction" (the liar is pretending that scientists could not detect a mass extinction event in the rock record or else pretending that they made one up from next to no evidence);"The observational fact that should be screaming for attention is the preservation of the amino acids and possibly other original material. Last November they said, “What’s more, fossil microorganisms and fungi have been preserved inside the wood.” How can they possibly believe that this wood is at least 251 million Darwin years old? Is there anyone in the Darwin Party who could take an unbiased look at this belief and admit it’s crazy?But you know what they are focused on instead? Climate change. They’re studying the mythoid of the Permian extinction because they think humans might be causing another extinction event by burning fossil fuels. “Whereas other extinction events have been triggered by natural causes, the one we may be in is likely driven by habitat destruction, climate change, and pollution, among other factors” – all human-caused, you see. Aren’t you ashamed of yourself.That’s evolutionary science. A string of mythoids held together by faith, occasionally interrupted by anomalous facts, used to lecture everyone else on global warming."Actually the bigot's description applies to 'creation science' and denial of man-caused recent climate change.

Previously he hawked this similar one (as I reported here at the time):https://crev.info/2017/11/fossil-forest ... ntarctica/ (bigot David Coppedge presumably, being worse than wrong - again)Which contains some more tiny pieces of Fool's Gold, such as:"Gulbranson even draws “climate change” into the discussion to sound politically correct and trendy";"Could the climate really have remained warmer for most of the history of complex life on earth? 386 million Darwin Years is a long time to have forests in Antarctica! Does that make sense? The Biblical timeline is more credible: the Darwin Years are a myth, and global conditions were very different before the Flood. One global catastrophe, not six, caused the extinction of many species on the Earth. The permanent ice caps are a post-Flood phenomenon."

So what does Sorensen have to say now? That "researchers used the scientific principle of Making Things Up™ in the course of their evosplaining". That there was "quite a bit of effort to deny evidence of the Genesis Flood and recent creation". Except that there was NO evidence whatsoever found for a 'Genesis Flood' - and Bob is LYING again. Such a huge ice cap in dry Antarctica DISPROVES any global flood just 4,500 years ago! Unless you believe in 'divine magic' trying to fool scientists.

As I previously mentioned in the Ken Ham thread when he flagged these fossil forests on Facebook and posted further misleading hubristic propaganda in response: NOTHING found in the Bible explains what is being found in Antarctica - recent global flood or not. NOTHING (in the Bible). How could there be the fossilised remains of forests (from 'less than 6,000 years ago' when Antarctica was also at the South Pole) in such a dry, barren, freezing and snowbound continent? But YEC deliberately makes up stuff that is not in the Bible - which looks hypocritical when they insist they are 'biblical' creationists.

What of the rabble who follow Bob on Facebook. You've guessed it. Like a red rag to a bull, they've got all hot and bothered (like Coppedge) because the scientists mentioned past (natural) severe climate change/global warming. For instance "Ahh but we all will die if the ice melts. Yayaya". But the prize for the stupidest Facebook comment goes to Sorensen himself: "Funny how they contradict themselves so blatantly and don't even notice. Anthropogenic global climate change relating to a time when they say there were no humans. Makes perfect sense." Funny how this hypocrite has an overwhelming desire to LIE. Since what the scientists reportedly said in November 2017 was: "Gulbranson and his team are focused on an era centered around 252 million years ago, during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction. During this event, as many of 95 percent of Earth's species died out. The extinction was probably driven by massive greenhouse gas emissions from volcanoes, which raised the planet's temperatures to extreme levels and caused the oceans to acidify, scientists have found. There are obvious parallels to contemporary climate change, Gulbranson said, which is less extreme but similarly driven by greenhouse gases." When describing the extinction event that did for many of these trees they did NOT, I repeat NOT, use the word 'anthropogenic': https://www.livescience.com/60944-ancie ... ctica.html

And 'Lucy' was not just an 'ape' it was a member of an extinct genus of hominins (like Homo naledi whether it should be reclassified as an australopithecine or not). Both have a mix of human and ape features.

Which claims (linking to this http://www.icr.org/article/8045/) "the very existence of comets in our solar system strongly argues for its recent creation, since comets only last on the order of thousands of years, not millions" (they are of course insisting that the Oort Cloud around our solar system is fiction). According to the Lisle article: "A typical comet can last no more than about 100,000 years. Some comets disintegrate much faster." (A quick online search suggests that this figure of 100,000 years may be too big.)

The Thomas ICR article discusses exo-comets around the star Beta Pictoris. The (spectral type A) star is believed to be very 'young' ie only around 20 million years old; Wikipedia references this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.2737

Which if correct suggests that Beta Pictoris has something similar to the Oort Cloud that is believed to surround our solar system. Which is why there are (apparently) 'still' comets orbiting around it.

If Genesis and young earth creationism were scientifically correct, all stars should be of the same age I think?

But there are SOME THINGS he should know:Lacey asserts in his 29 March article: "... creation researchers have used the argument that modern-type birds have been found in the same Cretaceous layers with dinosaurs... But a recent tactic has been to denounce creationist claims along these lines, or to claim that these examples are erroneous or misrepresented."

The blog post Lacey ignores pointed out that Wikipedia states that: "Among modern birds, Vegavis is most closely related to ducks and geese (Anatidae), but it is not considered to be a direct ancestor of them." That is the bird was not a 'modern duck'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegavis

But the Lacey article (I've skim read it), whilst citing the same 2005 paper that Wikipedia references, fails to address this point. Instead it asks:"...Is the contention true that there “are no fossils in dinosaur-bearing rocks of ancestral parrots and flamingos that are recognizable as belonging to those families or ‘kinds’”? Well the information they reported was that which has been in the paleontological literature, as documented above. Yes, there is some disagreement on these things, and that has been noted for a few of them in the quotes above. However, even within the past year, claims are still being made of recent fossil discoveries of modern-type birds in Cretaceous layers,20 so there is still ongoing debate...". This is footnote 20: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0189473 (according to the Abstract, the bones are similar to modern loons or grebes; I don't think Naturalis Historia referenced this 2017 paper)

Even if he is right, why is Lacey NOT keen for readers to view the Naturalis Historia blog posts?

Ham wrote on 16 Feb:"A recent article highlighted the discovery of a “duck-relative” (otherwise known as a duck), which they call a “modern bird,” from the supposed “Age of Dinosaurs,” according to the evolutionary timeline."

Whereas Joel Duff wrote on 27 Feb: "Ham’s associates could have done a simple search and found the Wikipedia entry on this fossil and discovered that, “Among modern birds, Vegavis is most closely related to ducks and geese (Anatidae), but it is not considered to be a direct ancestor of them.” Furthermore, a link at the bottom of the article refers to the fossil bird belonging to a “new clade,” the order Vegaviidae" and"... one thing is clear, this fossil is not “just a duck.”

However, Lacey does not highlight the point (repeated here so I assume it comes from within that 2005 Clarke et al paper) https://www.livescience.com/103-dinosau ... ckens.htmlthat Vegavis - a member of a new biological clade - is "not considered to be a direct ancestor of" ducks (and geese).

So Ham is calling a creature from the Cretaceous, identified only from skeletal remains found in Antarctica, 'just a duck' - even though the scientists who discovered it concluded otherwise - as quoted by Lacey: "a new species, Vegavis iaai, is a part of Anseriformes (waterfowl) and is most closely related to Anatidae, which includes true ducks ...".

No. He does NOT care to even try and engage with these details. Instead he prefers to RANT about me on Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/"Proved right again! Not so much about the content, but when I said:"They say we're misrepresenting the facts, uninformed, or even liars. (Yeah, that makes sense! Lying to convince people about the holy God the Creator and his written Word, the God who hates lies, and we do that — absurd on the face of it.) How about honestly examining the biblical creationist material? . . . "Although your typical village Darwin bot may appeal to outdated, biased material in Wikipedia or an atheistic propaganda clearinghouse, he or she will not change reality. "Then some owlhoot commenced to digging up Wikipedia and finding a theistic evolutionist who agrees with his selective citing and bigotry. Result? According to his "logic", the author of the article I linked in that post, Ken Ham, and I are all dishonest. But then, this is coming from someone who called God a liar. (God exists when atheopaths need to hate him.) His "logic" has been shown to be utter foolishness here and elsewhere. By the way, he's also an expert in science, theology, and ancient Hebrew. Pretty good for not having gone to school.He was angry and incoherent over that post, he's going to blow a fuse over the one coming out in six hours. This is why prolonged discussions with some folks is throwing your pearls before swine and giving what is holy to dogs (Matt. 7:6). -CBBviewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=1095#p52056"

Bottom line. Sorensen is so desperate to be 'right' by lying while being 'Christian'/'biblical' that he will even claim that I 'proved him right' because I cited Wikipedia and the Christian blogger Naturalis Historia within the two wide circulation emails - emails sent BEFORE 19 April - that were reproduced in my preceding post.

If you invented a moronic fictional young earth creationist bigot I doubt the character in question would try and use such a daft argument.

How many hate-filled LIES did I count in Sorensen's tirade? SEVEN.

This evil person also falsely accuses me of calling him a 'liar' when really he has a different 'interpretation'. But it's OK for him to disagree with my 'interpretation' of reality - whilst totally ignoring the details of my 'interpretation' - and label my words 'foolishness'. I'm a 'fool' because I strongly disagree with what Sorensen and Answers in Genesis say about science (whilst agreeing with theistic evolutionist Christians and non-Christians on science).

Bob Sorensen - Hypocrisy in Action. (And he wants an earthly reward - praise from the likes of Curtis Long, or should that be an 'n' rather than an 'r', on Facebook.)

PS at 2.05 am BST. Email as just sent:I've been saying for years and years that Bob Sorensen and Curtis Long are EVIL. They've proven me right again.viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=52058#p52058(Three attached photos - one from my earlier BCSE post and two from Sorensen's main Facebook hate page.)As I mention in my latest BCSE post a few minutes ago, my earlier post in the same thread (dated 20 April) re-produced TWO emails that I've recently sent ie it was not a DIRECT response to Sorensen's blog post of 19 April (I'm not calling Sorensen a liar for assuming otherwise). The emails were both sent on 30 March (within the thread 'Answers in Genesis' hatred of science - it's hard to miss') and they have now both been forwarded to Sorensen, Long and Gordons as confirmation.

They're at it again (Bob and Cuntis forget that I sometimes I choose to ignore their provocative postings from Fri until Sun ie have a weekend off from looking at their anti-science - and I might not always rush to view it come Monday).

https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/"Although this article refers to Bill Nye, it deals with the science that he and people like him are ignoring. So much so, that they erroneously think they are using evidence against biblical creation, and unintentionally affirm evidence supporting it. -CBB*****On April 18 of this year, The Public Broadcasting Corporation aired a documentary on its television show POV entitled “Bill Nye, Science Guy.” It can be viewed at the pbs.org website.1 Although this documentary was very critical of those it deemed “anti-science,” especially biblical creationists and “climate change deniers,” the film may have inadvertently highlighted evidence for a young Earth.https://www.icr.org/article/10616/"

Any article by the ICR that I've seen is invariably superficial tabloid propaganda. According to Hebert: "An explosive volcanic eruption lasting for more than a decade truly stretches belief" but then admits that "no one in recorded history has ever documented an explosive volcanic eruption that lasted this long [around 15 years]" (human history was NOT written down 27,000 years ago - even if people actually witnessed the prolonged eruption or eruptions that produced the Greenland ice core tephra in question).

And guess what - among the references provided there is NO reference to ANY peer-reviewed science paper. Stuff from the ICR is not peer-reviewed science.

Science knows of past huge or prolonged eruptions, including from super-volcanoes, that pre-dated the occasional big ones like Thera that ARE recorded in human history or legend. And young earth creationists have blatantly invented 'massive worldwide volcanism' during Noah's Flood (even though such is not recorded in Genesis).

Hateful lying bigot and nutjob Bob Sorensen was raging on the National Day of Prayer.

The young earth creationist fanatic who tells people he is a Christian sounds extremely angry about me exercising my right of free speech on an open community forum on the internet:viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&start=1095 (my last five posts where I did some critical thinking about a recent post by the Institute for Creation Research that Bob was going on about)

So Bob took his revenge https://www.facebook.com/Piltdown.Superman/"This is coming from someone who constantly ignores evidence and scrambles to find rescuing devices, no matter how outdated or irrelevant, for facts that creationists posts. He's also in no position to DEMAND that people talk about HIS subjects while he ignores other material, but he demands that people take him seriously when he has not given anyone a reason to do so.Their fundamentally flawed worldview is falling apart and they know it. Instead of repenting and believing Jesus, they attack more. Haywire is a blatant hypocrite, unable to deal with logic, and is consumed by hatred. -CBB"(photo attached of this rant of around 15 or 16 hours ago)

How many lies did he tell about me this time? NINE. (I admit, again, that I DO intensely hate his behaviour - whether or not he is targeting me.)

He's also a hypocrite in his accusations - he normally REFUSES to address any science I post online, whilst ranting because I DO sometimes address the claims he makes - and successfully refute them. (In this instance I refuted some pseudo-science by the ICR that the Bill Nye PBS documentary highlighted 'Young-Earth evidence'.)

I guess Bob's still angry that an interstellar asteroid named Oumuamua recently destroyed HIS worldview (not Christianity just this liar's worldview) - again. All his - not very numerous - attempts to explain that away as 'no big deal' or something to do with someone else's 'electric comet' hypothesis failed miserably.

I will add this email to that BCSE thread straight after sending it. Because the coward blocks my emails.

Some people never learn.

My weekend won't be spoiled by this person. In a way I feel sorry for him. (I know that at least one - only one though - YEC blogger recipient of this message is very uneasy about how this Sorensen person conducts himself on the internet.)

Any more lies against me by this person will be dealt with as necessary on Monday, on the BCSE forum. (It is shameful that it takes an ex-Christian or a non-Christian to stand up to this liar in public.)